Frans de Waal has done great work.

Evolution is a strange phenomenon. I invite us to marvel at the transformation of terrestrial quadrupeds into majestic aquatic creatures, over eons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

Evolutionary speaking, cetaceans "share" the front limbs with quadrupeds. And yet there is a qualitatively distinct functional difference. Consider that moral consciousness, as present in humans, is functionally not quite the same as its biological precursor, the moral sense present in dogs or gorillas. And, of course, there are gradual changes along the evolutionary way.

Edit: "Organ", more precise "sensory organ", as in "the visual organ". Perhaps there is a better word here than "organ" here, before we get lost in the medical distinction between eye / retina / optic nerve / cortex / etc.

Sure. Nothing is the same. Every animal is slightly different. As humans trying to understand the world with 3 pounds of meat, we abstract and group so we have a chance of dealing with the overwhelming complexity.

But I stand by my point. A moral sense is something that provably exists in a lot of social animals. Is it different in each species? Yes. Is it different in each individual? Surely. But unless you're going to claim that all of those animals are conscious, you can't say that consciousness is foundational to a moral sense. Indeed, I think the much easier argument is that a moral sense is foundational to evolving consciousness.

Why we should be reduce human morality to what can be "provably" found in other social animals? There are some rudimentary similarities, but those similarities do not circumscribe the entirety of human moral experience, not by a large stretch.

You're now arguing against things I didn't say, so I think I'll leave this discussion here.

It's entirely unclear that no other animals exhibit consciousness.

Rudiments? Probably. Existential dread? Sainthood? Unlikely.